[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 26, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-26537]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: October 26, 1994]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Bonneville Power Administration

 

Newberry Geothermal Pilot Project; Record of Decision

AGENCY: Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), DOE.

ACTION: Notice of Record of Decision.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Bonneville Power Administration has issued a Record of 
Decision (ROD) to purchase electrical power from the proposed Newberry 
Geothermal Pilot Project (Newberry Project), to provide billing 
credits\1\ to Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB), and to provide 
wheeling services to EWEB for the transmission of this power to their 
system. BPA has decided to acquire 20 average megawatts (aMW) of 
electrical power from a privately-owned geothermal power plant on the 
west flank of Newberry Volcano in Deschutes County, Oregon. The 
Newberry Project will generate 30 aMW and will be developed, owned, and 
operated by CE Newberry, Inc. of Portland, Oregon. In addition, BPA has 
decided to grant billing credits to EWEB for 10 aMW of electrical power 
and to provide wheeling services to EWEB for the transmission of this 
power to their system. BPA expects the Newberry Project to be in 
commercial operation by November 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\One method that BPA uses to acquire energy resources is 
Billing Credits. With this innovative mechanism, authorized by the 
Northwest Power Act, BPA provides a credit to an eligible customer 
for load reduction actions and energy resource developments. A 
complete description of the Billing Credits Policy is presented in 
an Environmental Assessment (DOE/EA-0180, June 1982), which has been 
made available to the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BPA has statutory responsibilities to supply electrical power to 
its utility, industrial and other customers in the Pacific Northwest. 
The Newberry Project will be used to meet the electrical power supply 
obligations of these customers. The Newberry Project will also 
demonstrate the availability of geothermal power to meet power supply 
needs in the Pacific Northwest and is expected to be the first 
commercial geothermal plant in the region

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Newberry Project FEIS, Executive Summary, 
Appendices, and Comment Report, (DOE EIS-0207, June 1994), and the 
USFS/BLM ROD are available from the Fort Rock Ranger District, 1230 NE 
Third Street, Suite A262, Bend, Oregon 97701; telephone (503) 383-4703. 
Copies of this ROD, the MAP, and the Resource Programs EIS are 
available from BPA's Public Involvement Office, PO Box 12999, Portland, 
Oregon 97212 or by calling BPA's nationwide toll-free document request 
line, 1-800-622-4520.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Katherine S. Pierce, NEPA 
Compliance Officer for the Office of Energy Resources--RAE, Bonneville 
Power Administration, PO Box 3621, Portland, Oregon 97208, telephone 
(503) 230-3962.
    Public availability: This ROD will be distributed to all persons 
and agencies known to be interested in or affected by the proposed 
action or alternative.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Purpose and Background

    The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) is a self-financing 
Federal power marketing agency with statutory responsibility to supply 
electricity to utility, industrial, and other customers in the Pacific 
Northwest. The Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and 
Conservation Act (Northwest Power Act) requires BPA to meet its 
customers' electric power requirements. 16 U.S.C. 839d(a)(2). As part 
of its mission, BPA is responsible for acquiring conservation and 
additional generation resources sufficient to meet the future needs of 
its utility customers. Section 6(d) of the Northwest Power Act 
authorizes BPA to acquire experimental, developmental, demonstration, 
or pilot projects of a type with potential for providing cost- 
effective service to the region. 16 U.S.C. 839d(d).
    The Pacific Northwest Electric Power and Conservation Planning 
Council (Council), in its 1986 Power Plan, noted that ``* * * 
approximately 4,400 megawatts of cost-effective electrical energy could 
be obtained through the development of regional geothermal resource 
areas.'' However, because the resource had not been confirmed, it was 
not included in the portfolio of the 1986 Plan. The Power Plan called 
for methods of confirming this resource so that it would be available 
when needed. Newberry Volcano, Oregon, was identified as one of the 
most promising sites.
    The Newberry Project was selected under the BPA Geothermal Pilot 
Project Program. The goal of the Program is to initiate development of 
the Pacific Northwest's large, but essentially untapped, geothermal 
resources, and to confirm the availability of this resource to meet the 
energy needs of the region. The primary underlying objective of this 
Program is to assure the supply of alternative sources of electrical 
power to help meet growing regional power demands and needs.
    BPA's purposes for this action are to:
    (1) Meet contractual obligations to supply requested, cost-
effective power to BPA customers, having considered potential 
environmental impacts and mitigation measures in its decision;
    (2) Assure consistency with BPA's statutory responsibilities, 
including the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and 
Conservation Act (Northwest Power Act), while taking into consideration 
the Pacific Northwest Electric Power and Conservation Planning 
Council's (Council) Conservation and Electric Power Plan (Power Plan) 
and Fish and Wildlife Program; and
    (3) Test the availability of geothermal energy to provide a 
reliable, economical, and environmentally acceptable alternative energy 
source to help meet the region's power needs.
    To make these decisions, BPA cooperated on and adopted the Newberry 
Geothermal Pilot Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 
(DOE/EIS--0207, June 1994). The FEIS was tiered to the Resource 
Programs Environmental Impact Statement (RPEIS-DOE/EIS-0162), which 
considered the environmental tradeoffs among the resource types 
available to meet BPA's needs.
    The FEIS evaluated the exploration, development, utilization, and 
decommissioning phases of the Newberry Project as well as related 
transmission, wheeling, and billing credit components. Alternative A is 
the CEC/EWEB proposal, and Alternative B is the three Federal agencies' 
modification of the proposal. In addition to identifying and analyzing 
the environmental impacts of these two alternatives for the Newberry 
Project, the FEIS also evaluated the No Action alternative. By 
contract, the Newberry Project is required to meet all Federal, state, 
and local requirements. The FEIS fulfills the requirements of the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and meets the needs of the 
U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), who 
have documented their decisions in a separate, joint ROD. BPA has also 
determined that this action is consistent with the Council's 1991 Power 
Plan.
    Based on the information analyzed and disclosed in the FEIS and 
associated documents, including the USFS/BLM ROD, BPA has determined 
that the preferred alternative is Alternative B with the conditions and 
mitigation and monitoring elements described in the USFS/BLM ROD. A 
Mitigation Action Plan (MAP) developed from the FEIS analysis is 
available. It requires implementation of the specific mitigation 
requirements described in the FEIS and USFS/BLM ROD.
    BPA develops and publishes a biennial integrated least cost plan, 
the Resource Program. In its Draft 1990 Resource Program, BPA said it 
would be willing to participate in up to three geothermal pilot 
projects. The purpose of these projects would be to initiate 
development, confirm resources, and determine the ability to develop 
three of the largest, most promising sites in the region. BPA agreed to 
purchase--in joint ventures with regional utilities--up to 10 average 
megawatts (aMW) from each of three projects. After receiving comments 
from customers supporting the projects, and after the Council approved 
this approach in its 1991 Power Plan, BPA published a solicitation that 
resulted in seven proposals.
    The objectives of BPA's solicitation were to:
    (1) Meet contractual obligations to supply requested, cost-
effective power to BPA customers, having considered potential 
environmental impacts and mitigation measures in its decision;
    (2) Assure consistency with BPA's statutory responsibilities, 
including the Northwest Power Act, while taking into consideration the 
Council's Power Plan and Fish and Wildlife Program; and
    (3) Test the availability of geothermal energy to provide a 
reliable, economical, and environmentally acceptable alternative energy 
source to help meet the region's power needs. Three projects were 
selected for contract negotiations on December 17, 1991. One of the 
selected projects was a proposal by the California Energy Company (CEC) 
and the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) to develop a 30-aMW 
geothermal power plant and supporting facilities at Newberry Volcano, 
Oregon.
    This Administrative Record of Decision sets out the reasons for 
BPA's decision to execute a Power Purchase Agreement with CE Newberry, 
Inc. (a subsidiary of CEC), through which BPA will purchase electrical 
output from the proposed Newberry Project; to execute a Billing Credits 
Generation Agreement with EWEB for a portion of the output from the 
Newberry Project; and to provide wheeling services to EWEB for the 
transmission of this electricity to their system.

Legal Authority

    BPA is a self-financing power marketing agency with the United 
States Department of Energy. BPA was established by the Bonneville 
Project Act of 1937, 16 U.S.C. 832 et seq., to market wholesale power 
from the Bonneville Dam and to construct power lines for the 
transmission of this power to load centers in the Northwest. As other 
Federal dams and transmission lines were built, the combined power and 
transmission facilities have been integrated into a single power supply 
system. Today, BPA markets power from 30 Federal hydroelectric projects 
and two nuclear plants. BPA's transmission systems contain 14,797 
circuit miles and provide about half of the region's power and three-
fourths of its transmission capacity.
    BPA sells wholesale electric power to 126 utilities, 13 direct 
service industrial customers (DSIs), and several government agencies. 
BPA's primary marketing area is the Pacific Northwest region, comprised 
of the states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, that portion of Montana 
lying west of the continental divide, and small portions of California, 
Utah, Wyoming, and Nevada. 16 U.S.C. 837 and 839a(14). BPA also has 
congressional authorization to sell or exchange wholesale power outside 
the Pacific Northwest to the extent that such power is surplus to the 
needs of the region. See 16 U.S.C. 837a.
    The Northwest Power Act directs BPA to serve the net power 
requirements of any Pacific Northwest electric utility requesting 
service, and to serve existing DSIs in the Pacific Northwest. 16 U.S.C. 
839c(b)(1) and (d). Although BPA cannot own or construct electric 
generating facilities, the Northwest Power Act permits BPA to acquire 
rights to the output or capability of electric power resources. See 16 
U.S.C. 839a(1) and 16 U.S.C. 839d. BPA may acquire a major resource (a 
resource having a planned capability greater than 50 aMW and acquired 
for more than 5 years, 16 U.S.C. 839a(12)) if it is consistent with the 
Council's Power Plan. 16 U.S.C. 839d(c)(1)(D). If the resource is not 
major, the Northwest Power Act instructs that the resource must be 
consistent with the priorities required of the Plan. 16 U.S.C. 
839d(b)(1) and (2).
    The Northwest Power Act authorizes BPA to acquire experimental, 
developmental, demonstration, or pilot projects of a type with 
potential for providing cost-effective service to the region. 16 U.S.C. 
839d(d).
    BPA is also directed by the Northwest Power Act to grant billing 
credits to a customer, if requested. 16 U.S.C. 839d(h). A billing 
credit agreement is a contract between BPA and a customer, under which 
BPA gives the customer a credit on its power bill for the difference 
between BPA's wholesale power rate and the cost of power from a new 
resource. The energy and capacity on which the credit is based is the 
net amount the resource reduces the customer's load on BPA.
    Finally, BPA must satisfy all requirements of the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.

Description of Need

    BPA load forecasts for the 1990 Resource Program showed that if the 
medium load growth rate occurs, BPA must acquire 500 aMW by the year 
2000 to meet customers' needs. Pacific Northwest Loads and Resources 
Study, 1990. If utility and DSI loads grow at the medium-high rate, BPA 
will need to acquire an additional 1,500 aMW by the year 2000. The 
analysis in BPA's Resource Programs Environmental Impact Statement 
(RPEIS) showed that geothermal is a reliable source of electric power 
that can help meet energy needs in the Pacific Northwest. Final 
Environmental Impact Statement: Resource Programs, 1993.

1990 Resource Program

    BPA's 1990 Resource Program, issued July 1990, defined the actions 
BPA would take to develop new resources to meet the power requirements 
of its customers. The 1990 Resource Program focused on Fiscal Years 
1992 and 1993, and included near-term actions to prepare for these 
years. One of these actions was an offer to participate in geothermal 
pilot projects aimed at confirming resources and determining 
developability at three of the largest, most promising sites in the 
Pacific Northwest.
    The 1990 Resource Program was developed through an extensive public 
process that included a technical review panel. Many of the comments 
received supported BPA's participation in geothermal pilot projects.

Council Plan

    The Council's 1991 Power Plan noted that the geothermal 
confirmation program in BPA's 1990 Resource Program was consistent with 
the recommendations of the Council's Research, Development, and 
Demonstration Advisory Committee. The Council's ``Recommended 
Activities for Implementing the 1991 Power Plan'' included geothermal 
demonstration projects initiated by BPA and the region's utilities. The 
Council acknowledged that energy costs of a demonstration plant would 
likely be higher than the marginal cost of other new resources, but the 
premium would decline over time.

Pilot Project Solicitation

Request for Proposals

    BPA published a Request for Proposals (RFP) in Commerce Business 
Daily on July 5, 1991. The RFP stated that BPA would be willing to 
purchase up to 10 aMW of electric power from each of three projects 
located in or near the BPA service area. Other conditions specified in 
the RFP were:
     BPA would not finance projects but only purchase output
     Part of the output from each project had to be purchased 
by another utility
     Overall project size could be greater than 10 aMW
     The proposed site had to be capable of supporting at least 
100 MW
     The proposed site had to be suitable for operation as a 
Federal geothermal unit
     The resource area had to be undeveloped for electric power 
production
     The power contract had to include an option for BPA to 
purchase subsequent output from the site
     Projects that would allow BPA to be a cooperating agency 
in a BLM environmental process were strongly preferred
    These conditions were intended in part to limit the number of 
proposals likely to be submitted. BPA could devote only a small amount 
of staff time to evaluating proposals, and therefore tried to be quite 
specific about what it wanted.
    Project sponsors were encouraged to submit project outlines or 
summaries ahead of time before developing detailed proposals. This was 
intended to prevent developers from spending money developing proposals 
that would not meet program goals. Several developers met with program 
staff or discussed the RFP on an informal basis before submitting 
proposals. Letters of intent were due September 3, 1991, and proposals 
were due October 1, 1991.
    Further information on BPA's Geothermal Pilot Project Program was 
published prior to the solicitation in an article in a geothermal 
industry trade journal, the Geothermal Resources Council BULLETIN 
(December 1990). The article specified that the projects had to be in 
three different resource areas, preferably involving different resource 
developers. This article was provided to developers and others who 
inquired about the RFP or the Geothermal Pilot Project Program.

Proposals Received

    Seven proposals were received. Two of them clearly did not meet 
program objectives, and a third was withdrawn by the sponsor during the 
evaluation period.
    One of the projects not meeting program objectives was located in 
Canada. Although projects located outside the United States were not 
excluded in the RFP, a foreign project would not have met the program 
goal of testing ability to overcome (U.S.) institutional barriers to 
development. Furthermore, a Canadian project would not be subject to a 
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) environmental process.
    A project was proposed at Raft River, Idaho, employing a power 
cycle (the ``Kalina'' cycle) considered to be precommercial. Testing 
new power plant technologies was not a goal of the program, and 
previously developed sites were specifically excluded by the RFP. In 
the early 1980s, Raft River was the site of a demonstration plant 
developed by the U.S. Department of Energy. Sponsors of the Canadian 
and Raft River projects were notified on October 30, 1991, that their 
proposals had been eliminated from consideration.
    Four proposals received detailed evaluation. They were:
     A proposal by the California Energy Company (CEC) and the 
Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) for a 30-MW project at Newberry 
Volcano, Oregon.
     A proposal by Vulcan Power Company (Vulcan) for a 30-MW 
project at Newberry Volcano, Oregon.
     A proposal by Trans-Pacific Geothermal Corporation for a 
30-MW project at Vale, Oregon.
     A proposal by Unocal Corporation for a 14-MW project at 
Glass Mountain, California.

Evaluation Process

    Proposals were evaluated by a project team composed of BPA staff. 
Two sets of criteria were used. The first set, considered ``threshold'' 
criteria, were the criteria stated in the RFP. Proposals were 
eliminated from further consideration if they failed to meet any of 
these criteria except the utility cost sharing requirement. Threshold 
criteria included:
     Resource area considered capable of producing at least 100 
MW. Since BPA required the sites to be undeveloped, there was no way to 
know reservoir size with much certainty for the proposed sites. If 
better data were not available, a resource estimate by the U.S. 
Geological Survey or some other authoritative source was considered 
sufficient basis for meeting this criterion.
     Suitable for operation as a unit. For the purpose of 
conserving the resource, Federal geothermal leasing regulations allow 
geothermal leaseholders to unite with each other in the development or 
operation of any geothermal resource area. The leases affected by such 
a cooperative arrangement are called a unit, and one of the 
leaseholders is designated the unit operator. 43 CFR 3243. BPA wanted 
to encourage coordinated development and avoid resource depletion 
problems experienced elsewhere, and therefore included suitability for 
unitization as a selection criteria. The lease block had to be unitized 
or suitable for unit operation with the developer as operator. If the 
area was not already unitized, the developer had to control a large and 
reasonably contiguous lease block. Bureau of Land Management staff were 
consulted regarding the suitability of proposed sites for unitization. 
It should be noted that unitization in itself was not the objective of 
this requirement. The objective was to encourage coordinated 
development and conservation of the resource.
     Resource area not previously developed for electric power 
production. A program goal was to develop new resources. If a power 
project had already been developed at a site, the site did not meet 
this criterion.
     Output contract proposed. BPA was willing to purchase 
output only, not finance projects.
     Amenable to BPA receiving an option on future power from 
the lease block. Since the cost of power from the first project was 
expected to exceed the cost of other resources available to BPA, BPA 
required a right of first refusal on up to 100 MW of additional 
development at each site. Subsequent plants would benefit from 
established infrastructure and lower risks, and the cost of power from 
them would likely be more cost-effective.
     Cost sharing by another utility. Initiating development of 
Northwest resources would have regionwide benefit. A cooperative effort 
that included cost sharing seemed appropriate. It was recognized that 
developers might have difficulty enlisting another utility before BPA 
identified candidate projects, so failure to meet this criterion did 
not disqualify a proposal during the evaluation period. Developers were 
notified of this.
     Project allows BPA to be a cooperating agency in a BLM 
environmental process. Staffing constraints would not allow BPA to be 
the lead agency in the NEPA review. This criterion effectively limited 
projects to Federal or Tribal land.
    The second set of criteria addressed the developers ability to 
complete the project successfully. These are standard criteria used by 
BPA in previous and subsequent solicitations, and included:
     Development team experience. How qualified was the project 
team? Had they worked together on previous successful projects? A 
salaried staff currently involved in project development or in 
operating projects tended to be rated more highly than a listing of 
consultants that would be hired for a proposed project. A salaried 
staff was thought to indicate greater stability and commitment by the 
developer to maintaining a long term presence in the geothermal 
industry. There was also no guarantee that the listed consultants would 
ever work on a proposed project.
     Ability to finance the project. Proven ability to finance 
projects was desired. Was the developer experienced in obtaining 
construction and long term project financing? Was the financing plan 
realistic? Audited financial reports were requested from each 
developer, and Dun and Bradstreet financial information reports were 
obtained, if available.
     Project design. Had all important aspects of project 
design been considered?
     Transmission availability. Were transmission capacity or 
wheeling services available to deliver the energy to the BPA grid?
     Site control. Developers were asked to provide copies of 
lease documents or other evidence of site control.
     Development schedule. Was the development schedule 
realistic, well thought out, and logical? Did it include all important 
activities?
     Environmental impacts/siting issues/permits and licenses. 
To what extent had environmental and siting issues been identified? 
What progress had been made in obtaining permits and licenses? BPA 
staff consulted with land management agencies in the project areas, and 
requested additional information from developers, when necessary.
     Cost of energy. This was used more as a starting point for 
negotiations than as a selection criterion. BPA did not expect 
developers to commit to a price until the terms and conditions of the 
power contract were better known. Another reason for not selecting 
based on price was to avoid being forced to select weak projects with 
unrealistic power prices and to discourage ``low-ball'' bids.
    The evaluation process included a preliminary evaluation of the 
proposals, followed by requests from the BPA project team for 
additional information and a final evaluation.
    An issue of site control affecting the two proposed projects at 
Newberry Volcano was examined. The ownership or ownership share of 
three leases--OR 11987, OR 11992, and OR 45506--was a matter of dispute 
between CEC and Vulcan. Since both developers considered it likely that 
litigation would be necessary to resolve this dispute, and because 
BPA's decision to purchase only output was thought to place all risk of 
nonperformance on the developer, this was not a critical factor in the 
selection process.
    The BPA team selected three projects for further consideration, and 
the Administrator was briefed and a final decision made on December 17, 
1991. The proposers were notified of BPA's decision by registered 
letter between December 18 and December 20, 1991.
    The December 18 letter to Vulcan Power Company, which was not 
selected, explained the reasons for BPA's decision. The CEC/EWEB 
project was stronger in many respects and met BPA requirements for 
utility cost sharing. Also, Vulcan lacked a history of successful 
project development (the one project it attempted was unsuccessful). As 
noted in the December 1990 Geothermal Resources Council BULLETIN 
article mentioned above, only one project would be chosen at each site.

Contract Negotiations

    The three projects selected for contract discussions were Glass 
Mountain, Vale, and the CEC/EWEB Newberry Project. All three projects 
were considered capable of meeting the goals of the program. Total 
output from the three projects exceeded the 30 aMW BPA agreed to 
purchase in the solicitation. But because the terms of the power 
purchase contracts and the degree of participation by other utilities 
were not known at this time (only one of the projects had identified a 
utility partner), and in the interest of meeting program goals, BPA 
agreed to consider purchasing more than 30 aMW. The Glass Mountain and 
Vale Projects will, if appropriate, be the subject of separate Records 
of Decision, and will not be discussed further in this document.
    Negotiations for the Newberry Project began in January 1992, and 
were completed in December 1992. The negotiations resulted in three 
proposed agreements:
     A Power Purchase Agreement between CEC and BPA;
     A Billing Credits Generation Agreement between EWEB and 
BPA;
     A Power Purchase Agreement between CEC and EWEB.
    Under its Power Purchase Agreement with CEC, BPA would purchase 
approximately 20 average megawatts of output from the project and 
receive an option on an additional 67 megawatts, if available in the 
future. Under its Power Purchase Agreement with CEC, EWEB would 
purchase 10 average megawatts from the project and receive an option on 
33 megawatts, if available. BPA would give EWEB billing credits for 10 
average megawatts under a Billing Credits Generation Agreement. The 
term of the agreements is 50 years from the commercial operation date 
of the project.
    The price of energy will not exceed BPA's Alternative Cost, as 
established in BPA's 1990 Billing Credit Solicitation. The Alternative 
Cost is the estimated cost which BPA would incur as a result of 
acquiring new resources, and is the upper limit on the amount of a 
billing credit other than conservation.

Memorandum of Understanding

    A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between CE Newberry, Inc. (a 
subsidiary of the California Energy Company), EWEB, and BPA was 
executed on December 17, 1992. The MOU acknowledged that the parties 
had reached agreement on contract principles, and defined the roles of 
the parties during the environmental review required by NEPA. The MOU 
noted that BPA had not made a final decision to sign any power purchase 
or other agreements, and that such power purchase obligation would not 
arise, if at all, until the environmental impacts of the proposed 
Newberry Project had been analyzed in accordance with NEPA.

Environmental Considerations

National Environmental Policy Act Background

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is the basic national 
charter for protection of the environment. It establishes policy, sets 
goals, and provides means for carrying out its policy. NEPA requires 
Federal agencies to make environmental information available to public 
officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are 
taken. Accurate scientific analysis, expert agency comments, and public 
scrutiny are essential to implementing NEPA. The NEPA process is 
intended to help public officials make decisions that are based on an 
understanding of environmental consequences. NEPA mandates that Federal 
agencies use all practical means to protect, restore, and enhance the 
quality of the human environment and avoid or minimize any possible 
adverse effects of their actions upon the quality of the human 
environment.

Newberry Geothermal Pilot Project Environmental Impact Statement

    On December 2, 1992, a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental 
Impact Statement (EIS) in accordance with NEPA was published by the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the Federal Register. This EIS 
would analyze the environmental impacts of various alternatives related 
to the development of the proposed Newberry Geothermal Pilot Project 
(Newberry Project). The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) would be the Lead 
Agency in this process; the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and BPA 
would be Cooperating Agencies.
    BPA adopted the Newberry Geothermal Pilot Project Final 
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (DOE/EIS-0207, June 1994). The 
FEIS was tiered to the Resource Programs Environmental Impact Statement 
(RPEIS-DOE/EIS-0162), which considered the environmental tradeoffs 
among the resource types available to meet BPA's need.
    The FEIS evaluated the exploration, development, utilization, and 
decommissioning phases of the Newberry Project as well as related 
transmission, wheeling, and billing credit components. Alternative A is 
the CEC/EWEB proposal, and Alternative B is the three Federal agencies' 
modification of the proposal. In addition to identifying and analyzing 
the environmental impacts of these two alternatives for the proposed 
Newberry Project, the FEIS also evaluated the No Action alternative. 
The Power Purchase and Billing Credits Agreements require that the 
Newberry Project meet all Federal, state, and local requirements. The 
FEIS fulfills the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA) and meets the needs of the USFS and the BLM, who have documented 
their decisions in a separate, joint Record of Decision (ROD). BPA has 
also determined that this action is consistent with the Council's 1991 
Power Plan.
    The following alternatives were considered in the EIS:

Alternative A

    Alternative A is the proposal as submitted by CE Exploration 
(CEE, a subsidiary of the California Energy Company). It includes 
exploration, development, production, utilization, and 
decommissioning of the geothermal resources on CEE's Federal 
geothermal leases on the west flank of Newberry Volcano. Highlights 
of this alternative, which is described in more detail in the FEIS, 
include development of exploration/production well pads at 14 
specific locations; construction and operation of one 33-MW (gross 
output) power plant at a specific site; construction of associated 
pipelines and access roads; construction and utilization of an H-
frame, 115-kilovolt transmission line along the north side of Forest 
Road 9735 to deliver power from the plant to an existing 
transmission line; and mitigation and monitoring measures as 
proposed by CEE. These would be permanent facilities with a contract 
life of at least 50 years.

Alternative B

    Alternative B is a modification of Alternative A developed by 
the three Federal agencies that allows for greater siting 
flexibility to minimize potential environmental impacts once the 
geothermal resource is defined through exploration. It is similar to 
Alternative A in plant design and size, size of the well field and 
pads, and design of the facilities except for the transmission line. 
It differs most in respect to the siting flexibility of well pads, 
power plant, pipelines, and access roads and the mitigation and 
monitoring measures to be included. It is described in detail in the 
FEIS and highlights include development of exploration/production 
well pads at 14 out of 20 possible locations; siting the individual 
well pads within a 40-acre or less siting area; construction and 
operation of one 33-MW power plant at one of three possible 
locations; construction of associated pipelines and access roads; 
construction and utilization of a single pole design 115-kilovolt 
transmission line to the south of Forest Road 9735; and additional 
mitigation and monitoring measures proposed by the agencies and 
public. These facilities would also be permanent, with a contract 
life of at least 50 years.

Alternative C

    Alternative C is the No Action alternative. Under this 
alternative, BPA would not acquire the energy output from the 
proposed Newberry Project, thereby foregoing the opportunity to 
supplement BPA's energy supply and to demonstrate the availability 
of geothermal power to help meet the region's power needs. BPA would 
also not provide billing credits to EWEB, with the same results as 
above, and would not provide wheeling services to transmit the 
energy. CEE would not go forth with the project without the power 
purchase agreement, and EWEB would cease further involvement without 
billing credits. This alternative is environmentally preferable, as 
it would result in no impacts to the immediate environment.

Other Actions

    Because the proposed action will not satisfy BPA's total need for 
electrical energy, implementing the proposed action will not foreclose 
consideration of other potential BPA resource actions. Resource types 
potentially available to meet future load growth were comparatively 
evaluated in the RPEIS and include:
     Conservation (commercial, residential, and industrial 
sectors);
     Renewables (hydropower, wind, biomass, solar, and other 
geothermal power);
     Cogeneration;
     Combustion turbines;
     Nuclear; and
     Coal.

Decision Factors and Issues

    All of the project alternatives were evaluated against the purpose 
and need for the Newberry Project, and only Alternatives A and B would 
satisfy the need for electrical power. These alternatives would also 
help BPA meet its contractual obligations and are consistent with BPA's 
statutory responsibilities. Based on the information analyzed and 
disclosed in the FEIS and associated documents, including the USFS/BLM 
ROD, BPA has determined that the preferred alternative is Alternative B 
with the conditions and mitigation and monitoring elements described in 
the USFS/BLM ROD. The rationale for selecting Alternative B is 
summarized in the USFS/BLM ROD by major issues that were of most 
concern or apparent controversy. A Mitigation Action Plan (MAP) 
developed from the FEIS analysis is available. It requires 
implementation of the specific mitigation requirements described in the 
FEIS and USFS/BLM ROD.

Environmental Consultations, Review, and Permit Requirements

    BPA reviewed the status of all permits and licenses required for 
the Newberry Project, consulted with CEE to satisfy area-wide, state, 
and local environmental plans and programs, and developed a Mitigation 
Action Plan MAP to assure that all environmental requirements are 
addressed and that all practicable means to avoid, minimize, or 
mitigate environmental impacts have been adopted. It implements the 
specific mitigation requirements described in the FEIS and USFS/BLM 
ROD. Development of the Newberry Project will be consistent with 
environmental policies established by NEPA and the Oregon Energy 
Facility Siting Council (EFSC), and will be consistent with the 
requirements of the Council's Power Plan.

Monitoring and Enforcement

    The MAP (Attachment 2) for the Newberry Project requires 
implementation of mitigation measures necessary to reduce the 
environmental impacts identified in the FEIS. The USFS, BLM, and BPA 
all have responsibility for monitoring the progress of the Newberry 
Project and ensuring that these measures are taken as appropriate. The 
USFS and BLM responsibilities are detailed in the USFS/BLM ROD. 
(Attachment 1). BPA will continue to monitor the Newberry Project 
through its environmental oversight program. The Power Purchase and 
Billing Credits Agreements stipulate the penalties for noncompliance 
with these measures.

Decision

    Upon consideration of the entire record, BPA has decided to execute 
a Power Purchase Agreement with CE Newberry, Inc., execute a Billing 
Credits Generation Agreement with EWEB, and provide wheeling services 
for transmission of energy from the Newberry Project to EWEB's system.

    Issued in Portland, Oregon on September 16, 1994.
John. S. Robertson,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-26537 Filed 10-25-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P